Manchester Evening Fictions
Newspapers should not lie to us.
And they should not lie to us even more when the lie is that women commit men’s crimes.
Manchester Evening News tells that very lie, repeatedly.
A judge has jailed a ‘dangerous’ woman for violent physical and sexual abuse.
The scare-quotes should be on “woman” on account of how the violent physical and sexual abuser is A MAN.
Angel Hill, 20, was handed an extended sentence for her crimes. Minshull Street Crown Court heard that Hill, who is transitioning from male to female, had demonstrated ‘violent, manipulative and controlling behaviour’.
He’s a man. Furthermore, he’s a man committing decidedly male crimes.
She pleaded guilty to assault by penetration, sexual assault, strangulation and threatening with a bladed article in relation to the victim.
Oh really. Assault by penetration? Sure, it’s possible to use objects, but what “assault by penetration” generally suggests is rape, with a penis. Newspapers should not be lying and obfuscating this way, especially when it’s a matter of putting men’s loathsome crimes against women on women.
Manchester Evening News also for some reason obfuscates the sex of the victim, without even saying why.
In a statement read to the court, the victim told how the incidents had affected their mental health. Defending, Julian Goode said that the defendant is still a young person and has not yet reached full maturity.
Why is the victim a they? Why is the perp a she and the victim a they? Why report the case at all if you’re going to blur out most of the relevant facts?
They’re not blurring facts out. They’re simply affirming Hill’s very relevant and factually true gender identity. Now why they fail to mention other relevant factors such as Hill’s astrological sign, aura color, or spirit guide, I’d like to know.
Met Police say:
“The legal definition of rape is when a person intentionally penetrates another’s vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person’s consent. Assault by penetration is when a person penetrates another person’s vagina or anus with any part of the body other than a penis, or by using an object, without the person’s consent.”
So, was he convicted of assault by penetration because the penetration did not involve his penis, or was it because the law is interpreted to not be applicable to men with a gender recognition certificate thanks to the word “his”? This and other articles I found do not specify. Also, he received leniency in sentencing for “age and mental health conditions”, and what’s the bet one of those mental health conditions is gender dysphoria.
This transition sure seems beneficial to a certain sort of predator. Bonus: he will probably be put in a women’s prison, meaning 7 years of a captive audience.
Good question.
@Holms
If the charge was assault by penetration, then what possible evidence do you have to suppose that there was actually a rape? None at all, beyond what’s in your imagination, as far as I can see. The fact that the s 1(1)(a) of the SOA 2003 uses the term “his penis” reflects perfectly everyday language; to think that it might give an escape clause to people who claim not to be their real sex is to give pronouns exactly the immense magical powers that TRAs say they have. But the TRAs are wrong, and so are you.
Likewise the wibble about “probably” being sent to a women’s prison. You’ve absolutely no evidence that that’s going to happen.
Enough with the paranoid nonsense. There’s enough to complain about here without making stuff up.
And, sorry, Ophelia, but it’s not a good question.
I’m not sure how useful it is to speculate about the hidden meaning behind everything you read in the mainstream media or what is “probably” going to happen next, but in a world where dangerous male predators are already serving in women’s prisons, a world in which rape victims have already been forced to refer to their rapist as a “woman” (who committed rape with “her penis”) and the crime has already been reported in the mainstream media as perpetrated by a “woman”, this is what you get. In a sane world none of this would even be an issue, but that’s not the world in which we do find ourselves.
My bad. I assumed “assault by penetration” was journalistic euphemism as opposed to a different crime.